At Foreign Policy Helm: Shultz vs. White House

By MICHAEL R. GORDON, Special to the New York Times

Published: August 26, 1987

WASHINGTON, Aug. 25—
President Reagan's overhaul of the national security apparatus after the Iran-contra affair has not resolved strong differences between Secretary of State George P. Shultz and White House officials over the conduct of foreign policy, according to officials close to Mr. Shultz and Frank C. Carlucci, the national security adviser.

With unusual bluntness, Mr. Shultz said in Congressional testimony last month that he was unhappy with the current system. In private deliberations, officials say, he has repeated his suggestion for strengthening his position as the President's principal adviser on foreign policy, and reducing the influence of Mr. Carlucci, who heads a National Security Council staff of more than 60 professionals.

Privately, some State Department officials echo this concern more vociferously than the Secretary. They complain, for example, that Mr. Carlucci usurped a traditional State Department mission when he carried out high-level consultations in West European capitals earlier this month and they add that Mr. Shultz made his strong reservations known to the White House. Meetings With Ambassadors

State Department officials also complain that the N.S.C. staff has continued to overstep its bounds by meeting with ambassadors from foreign nations, a practice that they say sows confusion abroad about who is reponsible for foreign policy.

Mr. Carlucci is said to be among those who believe that the Administration needs a strong staff on the National Security Council to arbitrate policy disputes between the State Department, the Defense Department and other agencies. Criticism of Official

''Every Secretary of State in history wants to run foreign policy all by himself. But it does not work that way,'' said one official, who has worked in the State Department and on the National Security Council.

''Shultz just wants to run more by himself,'' said a senior Administration official who is supportive of Mr. Carlucci. ''State wants to chair all the meetings, meet all the foreigners and have the N.S.C. do the paperwork,'' this senior official complained.

President Reagan appears to have settled the matter by deciding against Mr. Shultz. In his television address early this month, Mr. Reagan noted that he had fully adopted the ''Tower Board model of how the N.S.C. staff and process should work.''

In his Congressional testimony, Mr. Shultz publicly criticized the recommendations of the commission, headed by former Senator John G. Tower, on how to avoid a repeat of the Iran-contra affair because in his view they granted too much power to the National Security Council staff. Some White House officials are concerned that this criticism by Mr. Shultz will encourage Congressional efforts to restructure the N.S.C. system, which they say is now working effectively. Conflict Is a Feature

A White House official said the endorsement of the Tower commission recommendations was included in Mr. Reagan's speech to discourage the Congress from pursuing legislation to restructure the National Security Council.

Conflict between the State Department and the White House has been a perennial feature of policy making in every recent Administration. In the Carter Administration, for example, Secretary of State Cyrus R. Vance and the national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, repeatedly clashed over American policy on the Soviet Union and other issues. Alexander M. Haig Jr., President Reagan's first choice as Secretary of State, was locked in a bureacratic war with White House officials.

Since he took over the job, Mr. Shultz has also had strong differences with Defense Secretary Caspar W. Weinberger on policy issues, such as arms control and the use of American military force. President Reagan has often been reluctant to settle these disputes.

While Mr. Shultz and Mr. Carlucci have important differences over American policy toward Central America and arms control, the current debate is said to center primarily on the question of jurisdiction, power, and how policy is to be made and implemented, rather than on policy differences.

Phyllis E. Oakley, a State Department spokeswoman, said: ''Secretary Shultz does not offer comments pertaining to his relation with other U.S. Government officials. That's his policy.'' She noted that Mr. Shultz's general views were known.

Asked about Mr. Carlucci's position, a White House spokesman, Dan Howard, said, ''The President has complete confidence in the positive working relationship which exists between the N.S.C. and the Department of State, as well as the relationship with other Government Agencies.''

One White House official, who asked not to be identified, insisted that ''whatever differences there have been in their relationship have now been overcome.'' The Background: Limits of Power

The Reagan Administration came to power with the view that the power of the National Security Council staff should be limited to avoid the policy clashes that took place with the State Department when Henry A. Kissinger was national security adviser. It has experimented with several different approaches to making policy.